Slashdot Mirror
Hydrogen Fuel Balls from a Gas Pump?
navalynt writes "New Scientist reports that the Department of Energy has filed a patent for hydrogen fuel balls. From the article 'The proposed glass microspheres would each be a few millionths of a metre (microns) wide with a hollow center containing specks of palladium. The walls of each sphere would also have pores just a few ten-billionths of a metre in diameter.' They are supposedly safe and small enough to be pumped into a fuel tank in the same manner as gasoline."
Isn't is a bit disturbing that the government files patents to prevent us from using stuff that we paid them to invent?
So what happens to all the bits of glass and palladium after it releases its hydrogen load?
I guess ideally, it would get saved somewhere for recycling - but presuming that doesn't happ
en - is it going to be OK to breath microsopic bits of that stuff?
www.sjbaker.org
My balls run on diesel. I guess I'm doomed to a life of ball-ular pollution... Plus if I use the wrong grade, they knock.
big balls?
Great balls of fire!!
Say everybody, have you seen my Hydrogen Fuel Balls?
.
They're big and salty and brown.
If you ever need a quick pick-me-up
Just stick my Hydrogen Fuel Balls in your mouth.
Oooh, suck on my chocolate, salty Hydrogen Fuel Balls
(Put 'em in your mouth!)
Put 'em in your mouth and suck 'em...
I didn't understand what the palladium was for. But from the Wikipedia entry:
Pallaium has the uncommon ability to absorb up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen at room temperatures.
The page includes lost of other tidbits, too. I had no idea it was such a useful metal.
Cheers.
Well, at least it's got some people THINKING about alternatives. Now, if anything pans out, that is another thing...
Actually, it is far safer than gas to transport and store compared to gasoline. Why? A)It requires a stronger fuel:air mixture than gas to ignite B)It is incredibly light, so except in buildings with sealed ceilings, the stuff just isn't very dangerous (gasoline vapors are heavier than air, hence why you should NEVER store it indoors) C)It is 100% non-toxic and disperses instantly (say, in an accident.) If a tanker full of gasoline crashes- you've got a HUGE fire hazard, a major environmental disaster so you have to do something about it fast (especially if the gas contains MTBE), and the fumes are pretty toxic (and flammable, and hug the ground.) If a hydrogen tanker cracks open on the highway, the fire department just has to stand around and watch until the stuff finishes leaking out. No fire hazard since the stuff rises away almost instantly.
The biggest technical hurdle for hydrogen in a distribution network is with seals and hoses; H2 is so damn small that keeping it from escaping through seals and the walls of hoses is very difficult (same reason helium escapes so quickly from balloons, except H2 is even smaller.)
The REAL problem with hydrogen, which everyone loves to ignore, is that there IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to produce hydrogen efficiently, from a renewable resource, without leaving toxic byproducts; current methods either involve hideously inefficient electrolysis, toxic catalysts, or non-renewable resources. Guess why Bush is so hot to trot on Hydrogen? Natural gas is the current "favorite" source. Except you've got to do some nasty processes to natural gas to get the hydrogen, and you have to do something with the carbon leftover when you remove all the hydrogen atoms. The whole point of going OFF hydrocarbon fuels is to get off the CARBON which usually ends up in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide! Not to mention, natural gas is NOT RENEWABLE!
"Fuel cells!" you say. Except they're very expensive, have toxic catalysts in them, and have a very finite lifetime unless you use very, very clean water. Distilled/deionized water takes a lot of energy to produce...
Please help metamoderate.
The technology is probably similar to current "sponge" type hydrogen tanks; right now you can buy a hydrogen storage tank that uses some sort of metal hydride (I forget which) that can soak up a huge amount of hydrogen, similar to this. You heat it up to release the hydrogen stored or to recharge it, similar to how you 'recharge' that volcanic rock that absorbs odors.
The stuff theoretically wouldn't leave the "tank"; this wouldn't be like going to the gas station and filling up with little 'balls' of hydrogen. Still, I agree, it's worrying. What happens when a car is involved in a serious accident that breaches the tank, and the stuff gets all over the place? Or the stuff gets contaminated with impurities and needs to be recycled?
Carbon fiber seemed like a great idea for race cars, until track workers had to start picking up bits of the stuff. Guess what? It's the same color as asphalt, and it tends to break into very sharp shards, and the particles are really nasty if you breathe them in. Ask any track worker- the stuff is a BITCH to clean up, and if you miss any, it -will- cause someone to blow out a tire.
Please help metamoderate.
Considering the current cost of palladium (~$338 an ounce), you'd hope so.
You can learn a lot about a person if you just take the time to inject them with sodium pentathol
Hydrogen is theoretically the most effective and clean fuel, but practically it is a nightmare.
Forget hydrogen. There is an abundance of alternatives out there already that can utilize the current infrastructure and car fleet with little or no cost, like ethanol and SVO and RME and so on. My personal fav would be hydrogen peroxide, but then again I am just a geek.
Governments and universities and car manufacturers like to speak of big, expensive and complex system changes because
1 - they won't happen. Keeps the oligopoly happy.
2 - they make politicians look smart and progressive.
2 - they require aeons of scientific funding to universities and such.
3 - they require us to purchase a new car from the manufacturers.
Thus, simple infrastructure changes such as using ethanol or RME aren't favoured because they are cheap and simple and only benefit us, the plebs.
I am not a doctor, but for some reason the thought of millions of micron sized glass shperes does not seem very healthy to me. What would the effect of these glass bubbles be upon their entrance into a cut or other opening in the human body?
I once dropped a glass on my bare foot, and it shattered into thousands of incrediblly tiny shards. At the hospital, it took them hours to remove *most* of the pieces. Almost 20 years later, I still have pieces of fine glass sand in my foot. Now take this type of tramua, and miniturize it down even smaller. A powder so fine it acts like a liquid...Liquid glass. My foot throbs just at the thought of it!
Again, I have no idea if my experience is even relevant to this new technology. I guess I just wonder if anyone else has thoughts on this matter.
The argument is that hydrogen uses a completely new infrastructure for transport,storage, generation and end user while hybrids only need incremental improvements to battery technology. Hybrids also create the huge distributed electrical storage grid that allows conventional generator capacity to be used more efficiently (in the US, power stations have spare capacity at night in summer because of the need to meet daytime air conditioning load, and this capacity can be used to charge hybrid vehicle batteries. Smart chargers such as the ones already in long term marine use could be remotely controlled to supply current according to spare capacity, meaning that generators can run at constant output.)
Hydrogen is popular, I suspect, because it is a technical fix that appeals to some engineers (gee whiz, new technology) and to the oil industry because they get to retain control over the power infrastructure instead of those boring electrical utilities. Whereas a vehicle economy running mainly on electrical utility power and biofuel would take away a good part of the power over consumers currently enjoyed by Exxon and the like. A farm cooperative could easily produce its own biodiesel and bioethanol with a surplus for sale.
Every time I make this point I get banged on by somebody who claims that the likes of Exxon only do what they do to make shareholders happy. It's good to know that oil industry PR people can not only read but can navigate Slashdot, but at the end of the day a hydrogen economy just hands over too much power to the technocrats, whereas a mixed hybrid electric/biofuel economy leaves far more power in the hands of communities. The shareholders are happy when they can see no way that their monopoly can be challenged or dismantled, because it guarantees a continued revenue flow. If that means distorting markets, they are all for it.
Pining for the fjords
I just saw "glass spheres" and thought about bumping around in a fuel tank while you are driving. Just a-wondering how tough a glass sphere one buhzillionth of an inch would be.
To *me*, and I readily admit I am skeptical and suspicious when big business and government collide (and collude), but the "hydrogen economy" seems designed on purpose to keep the same billionaires and their corporations...billionaires and "in control" of transportation and energy.
I think I prefer right now and for the near future just normal liquid biofuels. We don't have to do any radical change to either vehicles or fuel delivery infrastructure, a pumpable liquid is a pumpable liquid after all. And the tech is here and it works, we really don't need a lot more government and industry billion dollar "studies", we just need the fuel produced in larger quantities and shipped. For example, using existing gas stations, just trash midrange, keep low test and high test, and use the midrange tanks for E-85, done, maybe swap out a bit of the plumbing perhaps, but nothing like setting up hydrogen production facilites and massive miniature christmas tree bulb factories, etc.
Then we need a switch (an option at the car dealers at all the current various price ranges, same as the "normal" cars) to "plug in" hybrids, which they could make right now if they wanted to, a lot of backyard gadgeteers have built them already to prove it is possible. This could offset a large part of the transportation load, especially for short and mid range commuters, drastically reduce the concentrated pollution in the urban areas, the fuel part would be almost all carbon neutral, and a lot of the battery part can be addressed by such things as home solar panel arrays with overnight charging to the plug in hybrids from the home battery bank. This would also improve the over-all national "fuel" supply but with little to no impact on the normal electrical grid demand. The Sun is practical fusion power,the only one we have really, we have the existing tech to use it directly, and plants use the same fusion energy to grow and we can get a large percentage of the fuel we need from them. What's not to like?
An individual can now purchase and own a vehicle,but you'll still pay "rent" forever on making it run, and the rent money goes to already uberrich guys, who already have enough political and economic power, IMO. Remember that picture of the exxon hog jowled CEO giggling as he testified in congress over the massive petroleum price hikes? The dude who got hundreds of millions for selling gas, like that's a problem right now? Do we really need to keep paying that guy and dudes like him like that, letting this energy cartel just keep dictating prices to us and how we do our transportation? I think *not*, we can do better, and right now.
It would be nice to start to become your own fuel producer. Even just some significant part would help your wallet, the economy, and the environment. The Sun -practical fusion power- helps solve these problems with tech we have today.
The problems with hydrogen are many, and handwaving some in, some out, just seems weird.
E.g., energy density is a real problem. While H2 does have 3 times more energy density than gasoline per weight unit, it's about 10 times lighter than gasoline even in liquefied form, and thus has worse energy density per _volume_. (And hideously less energy density if you use it as compressed gas.)
But transporting and storing it liquefied is harder than you'd think, because it boils at around -253 Celsius. That's cold enough to _freeze_ air on contact. It's also going to be a pain to keep it that cold, and even in the best insulated tanks it's going to constantly evaporate. In fact, a lot of it will evaporate every day.
And unlike natural gas, you can't just compress it until it stays liquid at room temperature. If you look at its phase diagram, a liquid phase just doesn't exist anywhere above -240 C. That's where its critical point lies. No matter how much you compress it, it just won't liquefy above that. So you _have_ to keep it that cold.
E.g., if you want to talk energy, there you go, there's even more energy spent cooling it to those temperatures, and a massive waste of energy when then it just evaporates in a car sitting in a garrage for a month.
E.g., energy density isn't really helped if you have to pack it in a massive tank, either to hold it under pressure or to keep it cold. If the tank itself adds an extra half a ton to your car, you haven't really won much. (Rememeber the lower energy density, so the tank will also have to be bigger to get the same mileage out of it.)
E.g., if you want to talk safety, you don't want to be the guy that gets splashed by liquid at -253C when the tank ruptures in an accident. Or yes, when a tanker ruptures on the highway. Yes, it will eventually just rise up, but in the meantime it will instantly kill anything it spills onto.
E.g., yes, a problem is that it leaks, so you'd have hydrogen constantly leaking in your garage. Whether your roof is sealed tight or not is a moot point when you have a couple percent of your tank's capacity evaporating daily in it. That's a _lot_ more vapour produced than gasoline produces. And you can't just seal the tak shut to keep the vapours in, since the resulting pressure will eventually be tremendous. So you don't want a garrage that's just not sealed shut, you'll want one that's ventilated constantly, even in winter. Otherwise it can jolly well blow up.
E.g., the problem is made worse by the fact that hydrogen has no colour or smell of its own, so you can't _know_ if you've walked into a room full of it or not. Gasoline, for all its other problems, does have a smell. Sure, it's _unlikely_ that you'd find the room just full of it, but do you actually want to take that risk? Plus, when you talk hundreds of millions of cars, some poor bugger may blow himself up every hour. (As they say, if you're one in a million, there are 6000 just like you. Probabilities are funny like that when they involve large numbers.) Do you want to be the car manufacturer hit by the lawsuits and negative PR of that?
E.g., worse yet, it also _burns_ with an invisible flame, so you could walk into a jet of flame from a punctured hose or tanker that did ignite, and not even know it until you get burned by it. Again, you can handwave that as _unlikely_, but it's a very real problem and given hundreds of millions of cars, somewhere it will eventually happen.
And so on. And, yes, I'd be interested to know how these palladium balls address those problems. E.g., will it actually make the energy density worth it, or just dillute it some more?
And conversely, hand-waving the energy and carbon concerns as some global catastrophe is... uninformed, to say the least.
E.g., yes, we already knew that on the whole you don't get more energy from burning hydrogen than you put into splitting the water. That's obvious. The problem is that while we're damn good at producing electricity, and outstanding at making electrica
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
"there IS ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to produce hydrogen efficiently, from a renewable resource without leaving toxic byproducts;"
I'm not sure where you got that idea. High temperature electrolysis, for example, just uses really hot water and electricity. It's about 70% efficient.
"you've got to do some nasty processes to natural gas to get the hydrogen"
Well, there are a couple things wrong with that statement. First of all, hydrocarbon reformation could hardly be described as a "nasty process". You put you hydrocarbon in with some solid catalyst, hot steam, and that's all. Second of all, it can work with virtually any hydrocarbon. Thirdly, natural gas is primarily methane, which can be produced in other ways.
"Fuel cells!" you say. Except they're very expensive, have toxic catalysts in them, and have a very finite lifetime unless you use very, very clean water. Distilled/deionized water takes a lot of energy to produce...
Fuel cells do not have toxic catalysts in them, they have platinum, which is just about as non-toxic as a material can get. Though they are expensive and short lived.
The idea behind hydrogen is that it can be implemented now, and is compatible with existing infrastructure. Automobiles and power-plants that exist now can be converted to use hydrogen. Hydrogen can be produced using conventional energy inputs, but can also be produced using many other inputs. So the advantage is versatility, and the potential to operate industry without producing CO2. Of course, it's not ready for prime time yet.
What happens if you inhale these little suckers? You know it will happen. How do they break down over time and how do they break down in a catastrophic accident? Spill cleanup? Do I just vacumn them?
Lots of promise but all the negatives are curiously missing. This sounds more fantasy than real, the old "patent the idea" and then try to make it work.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"hey, wait a minute, why are we spending billions of taxpayer dollars on a technology which will never work in the marketplace, which no one will ever use outside of experimental vehicles?"
Well, it's a great way to LOOK like you are doing something whilst being sure that nothing actually changes. After all, one of the few reasons to use hydrogen is the high energy density per unit mass - binding it to a heavy metal such as palladium removes even this advantage. I strongly suspect that it would be more efficient (not to say much cheaper and simpler) just to have a battery powered car.
Of course, if your average 2-car family converted to one battery powered runaround for short/local trips and one modern diesel for the longer journeys, then you would make some serious fuel savings with minimal/no lifestyle sacrifice. But that would be far too easy..
What if the fuel tank always was full of paladium pellets?
1. Setup fake gas station.
2. Substitute hydrogen gas pump for vacuum cleaner.
3. Profit!
If you scroll down a bit, You'll find other wonderful DoE inventations.
Like this one
With inventations like that, who needs cars??
Ben
Glass is actually very strong and elastic in the absence of point defects. Think about the glass in fiberglass or the fibre used in fibre optics. It is only brittle because of microscopic cracks that spread. Water greatly reduces the energy needed to break the chemical bonds in the glass. I'm guessing that the balls are so small that it will not be energetically favorable for the cracks to grow, even if they are wet. (Read about Griffith's theory on fracture mechanics to see why.)
Think global, act loco
In the future, please submit /. articles which link to the permalink contained in this, and most other blogs. Because after the next big scientific breakthrough hits the presses, the link in this article will take you to the top of the blog, forcing us to scroll around and find the item of interest discussed in this posting.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
At a V/V ratio of 1:900, every cm3 of palladium can absorb 900 cm3 of hydrogen.
Density of palladium? 12.023 g/cm3
Density of hydrogen? 0.08988 g/L = 0.00008988g/cm3.
Therefore 1 g of palladium can absorb 0.006728 g of hydrogen. This is around 150:1, much, much worse than the 1:1 W/W ratio used in the parent calculation. This means that instead of every car needing $250,000 worth of hydrogen-saturated palladium to equal 20 gallons of gasoline, it's more like $37,500,000 worth.
Thanks, Anonymous Coward! You're good for something after all!
The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
Now let us do a full cycle efficicency calc for the fuel cell. Starting with natural gas heated and cracked into H2, the efficiency is 60%. i.e. the H2 has 60% of the heat content of the natural gas we began with. Fuel cells efficiency is 80%. i.e. 80% of the heat content of H2 is available as electricity. There is no gear box. Electric motors convert electriciy to mechanical energy at >99% efficiency. Over all efficiency is 48% of the heat content of natural gas is available to the wheels of the car. This is already more than twice the efficiency of the gasoline energy to brake-horse-power to the wheels conversion.
The IC engine systems are at the pinnacle of their efficiency over 100 years of research and development and tinkering. The CH4 -> H2 reforming and H2->electricity fuel cell technology has barely started now [*]. Their efficiency will improve over the coming decades. Throw in the assorted facts like, 15% of the energy in the crude oil is spent in extracting it, refining it and distributing it or 80% of US Gas stations can be connected to the natural gas grid and reform CH4->H2 on site. The future of fuel cells is bright. They will win.
How soon can the US SUV fleet switch to H2? Well, in 1940 the entire locomotive fleet of USA was external combustion steam engines (6% overall efficiency energy_to_wheels/heat_of_coal). The diesel-electric hybrid locomotives had overall efficiency of 15% those days. By 1955, steam locomotives were dead.
[*] The principles of fuel cells are as old or even older than IC engines, but the large scale R&D effort has not yet been directed towards fuel cells and reforming CH4 compared to the R&D money poured into IC engines over the last century.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact